Why is concorde not in service?

Question

Why is concorde not in service?

Answer 1

BA eventually made big profit out of it but Air France could not make it a success so they persuaded

the French manufacturer of spare parts to stop making them, thus giving them an excuse to take it out of service.

This meant that with only seven aircraft BA were forced to withdraw theirs as it was perhaps uneconomical or impossible to source spares from elsewhere.

Maybe the French were yet again pussed off cos we are better than them at business and engineering.

Then again we are better at cooking and shigging, but don't tell them

Answer 2

simply,it was too expensive to run and maintain.

Answer 3

the planes were all getting old and it would have been expensive to make new ones.  Also other makes of planes were getting quicker and could offer more comfortable flights.  I think its a shame the flights have stopped because there would always have been people wanting to fly.

One crashed, not a few.

I flew on concorde and it was all about the experience - although the seats were quite small the food was served on proper plates with real cutlery - not the plastic rubbish.

It was very impressive

Answer 4

was costing too much to maintain ( shame really )

Answer 5

It was too expensive to run and as planes improve all the time..Concorde did not. It was small and cramped

Answer 6

It was too noisy. Looks good, flies well, but sounds really bad

Answer 7

It put the wind up Boeing ( they apparantly even employed the CIA to interrupt building ). And the Yanks have more money.  And he who has more money wins.

Answer 8

I answered this a couple of weeks back.

The REASON it does not fly is , is that it got its airworthiness certificate pulled after the crash. Reason being, that a blown tire no matter the reason the tire blew (F.O.D.) brought this aircraft down. That was not acceptable. So they pulled its ticket.

Thumb down all you want. Its the truth go do your reading...

Answer 9

There are two main reasons and a third but significant reason.

1 only a small number of airframes and components were made and no "production run" was ever envisaged to make a whole "Fleet" of them. So the market for the aircraft was small and the development costs could not be born onto the ultimate customer. such that to make a plane would cost over 200 times more than it would sell for.

2 It was never developed. The aircraft was revolutionary when it was first drawn, and beyond the scope of many designers imaginations. But t*t was not long before this was not the case. Developments is both commercial and military air industry soon outstripped that of BAE. Goverment funding was lessened and the project was no longer viable.

3 During the second world War British government  decided it wasn't going to be left  behind in the future arms race what ever it cost. So as the cold war developed and the race for weapons spiraled ever upwards methods of delivery needed to be fast and efficient.  The USSR and US got the rocketeers, which they began to develop. The UK didn't and we looked at a method of delivery that we could achieve from the UK. Strategic strike force aircraft were developed, The Victor and The Vulcan being the two largest and capable of carrying the then available nuclear deterant. Both wer relatively large cumbersome and slow, but the Vulcan had a low level capability which was unsurpassed and the Victor had a high altitude range capacity, What was needed was a combination of the two. A slender airframe with a high speed capacity and incredible range capable of carrying a nuclear deterent. The upshot was Concorde.

Didn't you ever wonder why the body was so narrow the plane so long and the undercarriage so far apart and that it didn't resemble any commercial plane ever built before or after!!!!

The body length is to contain the BLUE STEEL missile

And the distance between the undercarriage is to take the wing span of the missile.

It was also designed to contain free fall bombs probably like Yellow Sun and WE177.

Answer 10

British Airways were completely stunned by the deaths of their passengers , as were Air France. Although the accident wasn't their fault , and the planes were still furutistic in looks , the technology could keep up the pace. There was no proper investment in new supersonic technology. There are plenty of exhibits around the country to view on you summer travels.

A "British" made icon indeed and the socialist Tony Benn pushed it through.

Answer 11

too expensive to operate and too scary, since a few of them crashed

Answer 12

It's too noisy to go supersonic over land (negating it's speed advantage over all other aircraft). It was far too expensive to run & despite having one of the best reliability records out of all aircraft it was deemed unsafe to fly as the protection around it's fuel tanks was inadequate. The fire in Paris was the final nail in that magnificent aircrafts coffin.

Answer 13

The ash tray was full

Answer 14

See link

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/29342...

:o)

Answer 15

Replacement parts are no longer made. So the aircraft cannot fly. For example an inspection by maintenance engineers finds a fault with a key component such as the Hydraulic pumps. If a key component was deemed unservicable then a replacement could not be aquired.

Answer 16

The running and repairing costs were too high.

Also the tires needed to be changed every 4 flights.

Also sales was dying out.

Check the link below:

http://www.aviationearth.com/aircraftdat...

Answer 17

This question keeps appearing a lot, and the Correct answe why concorde was withdrawn is two fold, first, Airbus industries withdrew technical support for the aircraft, this caused the certificate of airworthyness to be withdrawn (it had nothing to do with the Paris aircrash) secondly since 9/11 the amount of people that where travelling on concorde dropped dramtically, and also the misconception that concorde lost money just isnt true